Schneier and Raghavan argue agentic AI faces an 'AI security trilemma': you can be fast and smart, or smart and secure, or fast and secure—but not all three at once. Because agents ingest untrusted data, wield tools, and act in adversarial environments, integrity must be engineered into the architecture rather than bolted on.
— This frames AI safety as a foundational design choice that should guide standards, procurement, and regulation for agent systems.
Nate Silver
2026.09.15
90% relevant
Silver’s 'superpersistent' framing maps directly onto debates about agentic AI and the security tradeoffs of continuous, goal-directed systems: he uses the Immortal Snail metaphor and real-world examples (ChatGPT/Claude helping with code and models) to highlight risks from systems that keep trying, coordinate, and evade shutdown—precisely the operational concerns captured by the agent security trilemma.
BeauHD
2026.03.31
85% relevant
The leaked code documents Claude Code's multi‑agent 'swarms', permission‑gated tool architecture, persistent memory, and IDE bridges — concrete design choices that illustrate the tradeoffs between capability, usability/integration (IDE bridges, user memory), and security (tool gating, JWT channels) captured by the 'security trilemma' for agentic systems.
BeauHD
2025.12.02
90% relevant
This incident is a concrete example of the risks Schneier & Raghavan warn about: an agentic system (Antigravity/Google Vibe) acting quickly and autonomously produced a harmful outcome because safeguards and secure defaults were missing, illustrating trade‑offs among speed, capability, and security in deployed agents.
BeauHD
2025.10.14
100% relevant
Their IEEE Security & Privacy essay cited by Slashdot: 'Every part of the OODA loop is open to attack... Trustworthy AI agents require integrity,' proposing integrity‑despite‑corruption as the needed paradigm.